![]() |
![]() |
#37 | |
Vikingsword Staff
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: The Aussie Bush
Posts: 4,363
|
![]()
Mabagani:
History supports what you say about the Bates Treaty (no disrespect to Rick's ancestor). It was an American stalling tactic to avoid a further region of armed conflict until the fighting with Aguinaldo and the Katipunan in the north had been settled. The U.S. apparently intended all along to return to the "Moro problem" if necessary. Another point of note were the gross errors in translation of this treaty from English into Tagalog. The English version speaks of U.S. sovereignty over the Sulu Archipelago, while Tausug version speaks of the U.S. offering protection only. This echoed earlier discrepancies in the Spanish treaties with the Sulu Sultanate. Not surprisingly, these treaties have created an ongoing difference of opinion that has persisted into present times with Moro disputes over the Philippines Government's authority in that region. Some of the bloody fighting on Jolo, especially under the command of "Black Jack" Pershing, was called into question even in the early 1900s. The high actual death toll at Bagsak (not 300 as officially reported but several thousand, many women and children) was known to U.S. authorities and did eventually come out more publicly. A U.S. Congressional Inquiry was called for to investigate possible atrocities, and I believe it was approved by a House vote, but hearings were never held. General Pershing went on to other things. This is obviously a touchy subject for many who are sympathetic with the Moro position. Let's not go any further down that path, though, lest we stray into a political minefield and get this thread locked! As far as prices going higher, I'm afraid you're right -- it has already happened. Ian. Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|